Atonement Symposium

Joint Evangelical Alliance - London School Of Theology Atonement Symposium, 6 -8 July 2005

08 July 2005

The Evangelical Alliance is pleased that the above symposium attracted over 200 people, and delighted with the high standard of papers delivered. Our partnership with London School of Theology in this venture was both fruitful and enjoyable, and we would like to thank them for their excellent organisation and hosting of the event.

On the second day of our meeting, we were deeply shocked to hear about the terrorist bombings in central London. While it might have seemed that our scholarly deliberations were far removed from these atrocities, we were led in our worship and dialogue together to remember that in his death Christ bore all the pain, terror and sin of the world, and in his resurrection offered hope in the face of evil, death and despair.

As the symposium unfolded, it became plain that significant differences remain between evangelicals on the precise formulation of atonement theology, and on the status of the penal substitutionary theory of atonement in particular. The symposium did not seek to gloss over these differences; indeed, it did much to clarify the theological substance of evangelical disagreement about the cross. At the same time, however, speakers on both sides rejected the caricatures and misapprehensions of penal substitution which have unduly exacerbated division on this subject. We note particularly that in his opening remarks, Steve Chalke acknowledged that much of his own widely-reported opposition to penal substitution had been provoked by the crude and distorted, but still popular, versions of the theory often taught in our churches. We also note that he challenged its more sophisticated proponents to avoid association with the image of a vengeful father wreaking punishment on an innocent son—which, he claimed, has distorted our culture’s understanding of God.

Despite such clarifications, critiques of penal substitution made by Joel Green, Graham McFarlane, Steve Motyer, Stuart Murray Williams and Lynnette Mullings, in addition to those made by Steve Chalke, confirmed that even in its most sophisticated forms, this teaching presents significant continuing problems for some evangelicals. We note in particular the charge that the penal substitutionary model has characteristically lacked a persuasive socio-political theological outworking. Although Anna Robbins’ defence of penal substitution engaged with this issue, we would urge more study to be done in this area by others who uphold it.

In his opening address to the symposium, our Head of Theology, David Hilborn, reiterated the position of the Alliance as set out in our statement of November 2004 – namely that penal substitution was taken to be implicit in the Alliance Basis of Faith by those who drafted it in 1970. He went on to explain that since early 2002, well before publication of Steve Chalke and Alan Mann's book The Lost Message of Jesus, the Alliance had been engaged in a revision of the 1970 Basis. This process is due to reach its conclusion when the new Basis is legally incorporated into the Alliance’s constitution this coming September. He emphasised that drafting of the text had not been affected by the controversy spurred by The Lost Message of Jesus, pointing out that the relevant clauses had been essentially settled before this controversy arose. The wording of the new Basis, he said, was similar in style and substance to that of the 1970 version: having acknowledged the wrath of God against sin, the new text goes on to affirm ‘the atoning sacrifice of Christ on the cross: dying in our place, paying the price of sin and defeating evil, so reconciling us with God’. As with the previous text, the words ‘penal’ or ‘penalty’ themselves might not occur here, said Dr Hilborn, but the main elements of penal substitution were still implied, and would no doubt be viewed as such by the majority of Alliance members.

David Hilborn’s analysis was corroborated in a subsequent paper by Steve Holmes, whose extensive research on evangelical sermons and hymns, as well as on more academic sources since the Eighteenth century, showed strong consistent use of substitution language in relation to the cross, with ‘penal’ terminology less explicit but typically implied. It was also borne out by a poll conducted on the final morning of the conference, following a keynote lecture the previous evening in which Howard Marshall had distanced classic Penal Substitutionary Atonement theory from its more populist distortions. This poll showed 94% of the 100 or so attendees who returned forms affirming penal substitution, with only 6% disavowing it. Of this 94%, 60% saw penal substitution as the dominant or controlling model of atonement. The remaining 34% regarded it as one model among several, meriting no prior status over the others.

In addition to the areas of ongoing study and debate mentioned above, we would note further specific matters arising from the symposium, which warrant more dialogue and scrutiny. Sue Groom questioned the readiness with which evangelicals have applied Isaiah 52-53 to Christ’s death. Garry Williams reiterated Howard Marshall's point that focus on an angry father raining down punishment on an innocent son does not represent classic penal substitution; yet others still wondered how this image had nonetheless so penetrated evangelical culture and identity. Joel Green questioned the penal and propitiatory dimensions of Romans 3:24-5, whereas Simon Gathercole’s paper affirmed them. There was significant debate and discussion about the context of Old Testament sacrifices, as expounded by Chris Wright and as applied to the Book of Hebrews by Steve Motyer. All these areas and more deserve further careful, gracious attention.

Most of the papers delivered at the event are already available on the Theology pages of the Alliance website, and a book containing these and additional essays on the atonement by leading evangelical scholars is being considered.

We acknowledge that in the closing plenary of the symposium, Alan Mann confirmed that that for his part, he would now re-examine penal substitution closely—not least in light of the defence of that model presented by Howard Marshall.

Summing up the symposium, the Alliance’s General Director, Joel Edwards, said: "Penal substitution is still central for most British evangelicals’ understanding of the cross, and the Alliance’s own ethos reflects that. However, there is an extent to which the exact mechanics of the atonement must remain a mystery to us in our limited, sinful perception. We are very pleased that this symposium has done so much to deepen understanding of the cross of Christ, but we recognise that study and discussion on this vital matter must continue. In particular, we welcome the fact that both Steve Chalke and Alan Mann affirmed their willingness to continue creative engagement with penal substitutionary atonement, and to work alongside its proponents in the cause of the gospel. In the spirit of the symposium, we hope that others will continue to listen to their concerns."

Reflecting on the symposium and the debate which preceded it, Steve Chalke said: "My concern has never been with labels but rather content—indeed my book does not mention Penal Substitution but does reject the crass and crude representation of atonement as the outcome of an angry Father divided against his innocent Son. I applaud Professor Howard Marshall and others for so clearly distancing themselves from this dangerous misrepresentation. The task now facing us as preachers, evangelists and song writers is to be just as explicit as we do the same."

Derek Tidball, Principal of London School of Theology and Chair of the Alliance’s Council, added: "The Evangelical Alliance is uniquely placed to facilitate this debate, and it has been good to work together on this symposium. London School of Theology looks forward to continuing the partnership as we seek with our fellow evangelicals to understand how best to ‘preach Christ crucified’."